Talk:List of monarchs of Kush

BC

This article was created with BC AD dates and according to wikipedia policy you aren't meant to change them one way or another from the version. Thank you, Chooserr

Not really

This article's stub was created with BC dates, it had virtually no content at the time and remained virtually blank until this edit, which does in fact use BCE dates, either way, this is a really silly debate--Aolanonawanabe 21:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The article started as a list of monarchs 20 December 2003, in BC/AD notation. This was an incomplete list, but was not a stub, since a list is actually a list. If you won't provide better reasons for BCE/CE format, this page must be reverted to BC/AD. I am not against protecting the article, but if you protect it before the matter is settled, you are actually supporting a position.--Panairjdde 10:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You're wrong. First of all, the matter isn't going to be "settled". Second, page protection is never an endorsement of any version, it's a way of getting editors to stop acting like babies. How hard is it to see that nobody wins a revert war? You change a page, and someone changes it back, what are you gonna do, change it back again? Then they change it again, what are you gonna do, revert again? What, do you think you'll outlive the other side? NO! I don't care one bit how the article was started, I care about people not engaging it edit warring. Please read m:The Wrong Version for the skinny on page protection and non-endorsement of any side. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I did not notice there was a revert war when I did my changes, and you could at least acknowledge the fact that I spent my time discussing the matter here, instead of reverting back.

I am not sure about the meaning of you sentence " the matter isn't going to be "settled""; would you explain it better?

As regards blocking, I am aware that protecting a page has the aim of endind a revert war, but if you protect a page for a long time, you are actually supporting a version, the one you blocked. So, what version are you going to protect, the BC/Ad or the BCE/CE, and why?--Panairjdde 16:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I wouldn't protect anything "for a long time". That's precisely what page protection isn't for. Secondly, it's to avoid choosing a version that I listed it at WP:RPP instead of protecting it myself. I'd rather an uninvolved admin protect it in whatever version they happen to find it. If I absolutely had to choose a version (which I don't), I would be sure to choose the Wrong one; what else is there to say? The only point of page protection is to force the issue out of edit summaries and onto the talk page, with the intention of unprotecting as soon as possible. How can that be seen as endorsement of any particular version?

When I say it isn't going to be settled, I'm being somewhat pessimistic. I'm actually willing to work to settle this problem, but I know what that involves. Under current policy, you see, there's no way to decide how the page should be (at least not under any widely accepted interpretation of policy). The only thing that current policy supports (that everyone can agree it supports) is: stop reverting now; if it's wrong, leave it wrong; walk away. Don't edit war. Ever.

What needs to happen, and will eventually happen, but I estimate it will take years, is for the community to come to some kind of consensus about how these things are to be done. I think the best thing for it now is to continue to let more and more people know that it really is a stalemate, and that it really is a problem. If it takes a few hundred articles being "wrong" according to your POV to make you believe there's a problem, then so be it.

What's preventing consensus now is this: There are people on both sides who are entirely inflexible (we absolutely must use BCE/CE in all cases, or we absolutely must use BC/AD in all cases, there are more people somewhere in the middle than at either extreme, but not many more, and there are a sizeable handful of veterans of BC/BCE edit wars who think that trying to solve the problem is just pointless, and that we should somehow resign ourselves to the status quo, which nobody likes. We can't even get people to agree to any kind of truce/compromise/stopgap/whatever, like respecting original versions.

Now, how do you see this issue being "settled", on this article out of the dozens where this has come up? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

When I read such things, I really feel like quitting WP. Do as you please.--Panairjdde 17:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well then, what do you suggest? Please, I'm all ears. What's the best thing to do? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The article was practically a stub when it was started with less than 10 actual dated events. The link provided above shows when it was heavily expanded (30+ entries I believe) and the notation was changed to BCE/CE. I believe it was at this point that the article was actually "created" and that the editor who expanded it is the actual "author". —Locke Cole • t • c 22:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem to think that the "original" state of the article or what some "author" did has any bearing on whether it should be BC/AD or BCE/CE now. That's incorrect. Even if the current version is at variance with the "original" (which is clearly not an unambiguous criterion), that's no excuse for making any reversion. You should know this, Locke, you're hardly a newbie. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the current guidelines was that, to avoid disputes such as this, the article should remain as it was originally created (BCE/CS vs. BC/AD). If this has changed, please let me know (FWIW, I think I read this in the MoS someplace). I do think it would be best if everyone stepped back and walked away from this, but some of those involved (I have one specifically in mind) seem to engage in slow revert wars to push their agenda. It's not exactly a situation that lends itself to easy resolution. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What you describe is precisely what lots of people think the MoS says, but it doesn't say that. It remains strangely silent on the topic. Every attempt to amend the MoS to say what you and others figure it already says has been met with extreme resistance by those on both sides who seem to think that maintaining an unstable stalemate is better than maintaining a stable one. Apparently, people would rather edit war than not. It's kind of frustrating, but the upshot is: no, there's no justification for changing eras, and if you revert an edit warrior, you just become another edit warrior. If it matters to you, help convince people that there's an alternative that, while it won't please everyone, is better than the status quo. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

All of you, stop reverting!

Are we all 10 years old? Nobody wins a revert war. You don't get to fight about BCE vs BC over this article; policy supports neither side under any consensus interpretation, but policy is firmly against edit warring - you're all wrong. I'll protect this page if I log on tomorrow and it's been reverted again; I encourage any other admin to do the same - and make sure you protect it in m:The Wrong Version, for Pete's sake! -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

BCE/CE is a more neutral form. It is used by the academic community which wikipedia is trying to be part of. It holds less geographic bias. --Colle||Talk-- 23:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

BCE/CE is used by American academics. Whether or not it's biased is being/has been discussed at great length at Wikipedia:Eras among other places. The current policy is that nether BCE/CE nor BC/AD is to be favored, but that editors are not to change date formats depending on what they think is less POV, because it leads to edit wars, there not being consensus. In other words, the current policy is to leave date formats alone. Please do not edit any date formats beyond making articles internally consistent. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair. What articles then use the BCE/CE form? Also, BCE/CE is used by academics across the world (Not just in USA).--Colle||Talk-- 23:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The articles that use BCE/CE form are the ones that happen to have it now. Any article currently in BCE/CE uses BCE/CE. Any article currently in BC/AD uses BC/AD. There are some articles where the regular editors have managed to arrive at a consensus on which format to use; elsewhere the rule is "leave it the heck alone". This admittedly unhappy state of affairs (the only thing agreed upon at Wikipedia:Eras is that nobody favors the status quo) will remain until someone manages to hammer Wikipedia:Eras into some kind of form that we can get consensus on. That currently seems impossible. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

But I cannot find any timelines that use the BCE form! If the ad-hoc policy really is the case, they wouldn't all be one way or another.--Colle||Talk-- 00:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I do think the majority of articles on Wikipedia are in BC/AD format. I personally agree that BCE/CE is better, but we can't just edit war it into being. One of these days I'll hit Wikipedia:Eras again, and try to make a case for sanity, or at least courtesy, or at least compromise other than the anarcy we've got now, where people are effectively rewarded for edit warring quietly. It's not the best. When you're trying to work by consensus, you make some sacrifices. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have filed a request at WP:RPP that this page be protected; I'd just do it myself (did in fact, but then changed my mind and undid), but I'd rather someone even less involved than myself do it, or just block everyone for edit warring. For the record, both sides are wrong. Nothing, not even undoing a bad revert, justifies changing a date format in an article. Period. Under the current policy, if you don't leave them alone, you're being disruptive, even when others aren't leaving them alone. If you care about date formats, and you don't like the way they are now, find a way to change the policy, or try to get consensus on an article-by-article basis. Yes, either of those is very difficult. Worthwhile things are difficult; deal with it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't really believe that. I see this as encouragment for the powers that be to take one policy and stick with it. Sometimes it takes a bit of chaos to bring order. You seem to be interested in stomping out the chaos, but it is bred within the system. We all know that democracy by consensus has some serious fallbacks. WP:policies and guidelines helps solve many of the potential failings we deal with day to day. But this is a policy, that itself is subject to consensus. This matter has no consensus (and no charter to fall back on). It's easy to blast others when anarchy strikes, but really, it's the system which is failing.--Colle||Talk-- 06:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The "powers that be"? We're all powers that be here. There's nobody in charge, who has a foot to put down and say it's one way or the other. Administrators wheel war, just as surely as other editors edit war.

I'm not remotely interested in stamping out chaos. An edit war isn't chaos, it's a very highly ordered dyadic structure, also known as a complete waste of time. You ever see two kids arguing: "is not!"... "is so!"... "is not!"... "is so!"? That's an edit war. I'm in favor of chaos. In this case, it should occur over at Wikipedia talk:Eras. (I should have been pointing to the talk page all along, because adding more signatures to a month-dead straw-poll isn't really much of a movement towards solution.) This problem is larger than this particular article, and its only solution will involve jostling some people out of some very deeply held views. That will probably require some well-placed chaos, but it will also require a lot of work, which isn't achieved by hitting a revert button. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Page is protected. Work this out. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

I have noticed that the German Wikipedia has better coverage of these rulers, & their list varies at points from the English one -- even though their source is written in English! It appears as if there is a lot of work that needs to be done here. -- llywrch 20:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of monarchs of Kush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080308110441/http://www.yare.org/essays/kushite%20kingdom%20of%20Napata.htm to http://www.yare.org/essays/kushite%20kingdom%20of%20Napata.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080308110441/http://www.yare.org/essays/kushite%20kingdom%20of%20Napata.htm to http://www.yare.org/essays/kushite%20kingdom%20of%20Napata.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)